by
Isaak and Vladimir Linder
The World Chess Champion Series
2010
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
Milford, CT USA
José Raúl Capablanca
Third World Chess Champion
by Isaak and Vladimir Linder
© Copyright 2010
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any manner or form whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
ISBN: 978-1-888690-56-9
Published by:
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 5460
Milford, CT 06460 USA
http://www.russell-enterprises.com
info@russell-enterprises.com
Translated from the Russian by Boris Belitsky Editing and Proofreading by Angelo DePalma, Hanon Russell Production by Mark Donlan, Hanon Russell Cover design by Janel Lowrance
Printed in the United States of America
Preface
Chapter One: “Viva Capablanca!”
The Havana Marvel
Champion at Thirteen
America Applauds
Highly Dynamic Chess
San Sebastian Repercussions
At the Foot of Mt. Olympus
Chapter Two: Challenger Number One
European Tour
St. Petersburg, 1914
A Worthy Opponent
Honing His Skill
My Chess Career
Chapter Three: On Mt. Olympus
“A Style Beyond Reproach”
Three Cheers
The Golden Rampart
New York, 1924
The Champion Goes Over Big
A Brilliant Victory
Chapter Four: Match of the Titans
The Optimism of Genius
A Surprise at the Start
The Champion’s Best Game
The Challenger Turns the Tide
A Drama in Thirty-four Acts
Chapter Five: In the Hope of Recovering the Title
His Ambition Aroused
Carlsbad Themes
The “Correspondence Match”
An Unusual Rivalry
Is a Reform Necessary?
Chapter Six: Regaining His Former Strength
An Excellent Result
Again a Challenger
His Last Years
Chapter Seven: Capablanca’s Place in Chess History
His Chess Heritage
His Contribution to Theory
Chess for All
Capablanca’s Match Record
Capablanca’s Tournament Record
Tournament Crosstables
Player Index
Opening Index
Bibliography
Notes
List of Other eBooks
“I have known many chessplayers, but only one genius among them – Capablanca! Young players can learn a great deal from him.” – Emanuel Lasker
“Capablanca was snatched from the chess world much too soon. With his death, we lost a very great chess genius, whose like we shall never see again.” – Alexander Alekhine
The name of José Raúl Capablanca (1888-1942), the third world champion, is indelibly inscribed in the annals of chess history. Capablanca’s technique, intuition, remarkably quick calculation, and sense for elegant combinations made him the paragon of grandmasters during his lifetime. At the peak of his career Capablanca was invincible; each of his losses was regarded as a sensation. His books, articles, and lucid annotations became instant classics.
Capablanca was a man of many interests and gifts, ranging from the arts, sciences, and sport. As sincere as he was noble, the great Cuban could not fail but make a powerful impression.
As a star of the first magnitude, Capablanca continues to influence the world of chess. All the world champions of the latter twentieth century – Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov – have been influenced by Capablanca’s original ideas.
At his news conference after winning the world title in 1960, Mikhail Tal was asked, “It is said you have adopted all that was best in the chess heritage of the past world champions. What, specifically, has this given you?”
In his reply Tal expressed his admiration for Capablanca’s technical expertise. “The summits of chess cannot be scaled without technique, and for that reason we all seek to emulate Capablanca’s wonderful and subtle technique.”
It is no wonder that the playing styles of three world champions (Petrosian, Karpov, and Fischer) have been compared to Capablanca’s.
According to GM Robert Byrne, “...The basic concept in Fischer’s strategy has as its source the clear-cut classicism of Capablanca.” Byrne arrived at this conclusion by carefully analyzing Fischer’s games. “When going over his exciting games with him, I was always astonished at the way he evaluated the situation in terms of extremely simple positional categories and from the standpoint of the contours of the coming endgame, and this strongly related him to Capablanca.”1
The centenary of Capablanca’s birth was commemorated by the entire chess world, furnishing fresh evidence of universal admiration for the Cuban’s chess legacy. During the past half-century chess has changed dramatically. The game has become more dynamic, vastly more information-intensive, and interest in world title contests has greatly increased. Yet many of Capablanca’s maxims have proved consonant with contemporary play, continuing to inspire generations of chessplayers.
Numerous problems confront modern authors interested in chronicling Capablanca’s life and career. One is uncovering new sources of information on the third world champion’s games, writings, interviews, and reminiscences by and about him. There is also a great need to provide an impartial appraisal of Capablanca’s contribution to chess since during his lifetime stereotypes arose that tend, to this day, to obscure his contributions to the game. For example, it was said that Capablanca scorned opening theory, that he was a “chess machine,” that he predicted an imminent “death by draw” for the game, and that chess for Capablanca was merely a hobby.
The reader may judge the extent to which we have succeeded in our task of providing a broad, impartial, yet thorough profile of the third world champion’s role in the development of world chess.
Two points deserve mention in this context. In addition to collections of games and their annotations by eminent chess players, and several general works on Capablanca’s life and chess career, we have drawn upon little-known articles by Capablanca himself. We are, furthermore, publishing for the first time some of his letters that were in our possession, including his remarkable testament to his son, and reminiscences of Capablanca by his contemporaries. At the same time the abundance of documents at our disposal about Capablanca’s friendly contacts with Russia, which he visited on four occasions to play in major international tournaments, provides an excuse for our somewhat more detailed coverage of these events, each of which was something of a milestone in his chess career.
In his “Last Chess Lectures,” broadcast from New York in 1941 to listeners in Latin America, Capablanca mentioned, among the many merits of chess, “the fact that it is also a means of knitting together more firmly social and intellectual bonds... among the various peoples.” We would be happy if this purpose were also in some measure served by the present book about that chess genius José Raúl Capablanca.
Isaak and Vladimir Linder
Moscow
April 2010
Lt. Jorge Capablanca and his four-year-old son José Raúl.
In 1892 two notable events occurred in Havana’s chess community. One of them received publicity throughout Cuba, indeed, throughout the world: Havana became the venue of the world title match between the first ever world champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, and the champion of Russia, Mikhail Chigorin. The other event was known only to the relatives and friends of Don Jorge Capablanca y Graupera.
One day just before sunset at the La Cabana Fort, not far from Morro Castle, Lieutenant Don Jorge was playing a game of chess with the commander of the fort, General Lono.
For several evenings their play had been watched in silence by the Lieutenant’s four-year-old son Raúl. The boy was dressed in a skirt, and his long, wavy hair reached down to his shoulders. Raúl’s mother had very much wanted a daughter, so when another boy was born, she for a long time would call him niña (Spanish for girl), dress him as a girl, and not cut his hair.1
“See that you don’t bother us,” Don Jorge would usually say to his son before the game, as he placed a little bench alongside their massive table. Little Raúl would clamber on that bench and watch the movement of the pieces in fascination.
On one occasion he suddenly broke his silence and exclaimed, “Daddy, Daddy, you made a wrong move! A wrong move with your knight.” The players glanced at the boy in silence, smiled, and went on with the game.
Afterwards, when the general had left, Raúl’s father asked the boy why he thought that a move had been wrong. The boy quickly set up the position on the chessboard and pointed out the mistake.
“Caramba!” said the astonished father. “Do you mean to say you know how to play chess?!”
The boy proudly challenged his father to a game. They sat down at the table, and – Don Jorge lost.
Señor Capablanca, hoisting Raúl onto his shoulder, ran out into the street, shouting, “Ave Maria! A miracle! A miracle has happened! My four-year-old son has beaten me at chess!”
Don Jorge was, of course, convinced that his son José Raúl had been born (on November 19, 1888) under a lucky star. But he could not dream that the child’s remarkable talents would become apparent at such an early age, moreover in chess, which was in high regard in Havana. So the proud father took the boy to the Havana Chess Club.
There was always something going on at the club, and it was there that two world championship matches had been played. Steinitz called the club the Eldorado del Ajedrez (El Dorado of chess, a reference to the mythical South American city of gold).
The world champion had a good reason to describe the club in this manner. Cuba’s chess tradition goes back to around the end of the fifteenth century, soon after Christopher Columbus discovered the island and the first Spanish conquistadors appeared. When setting out from Spain on their distant voyages, Spanish soldiers took their chess sets along. Subsequent interest in chess on the island remained high. In the nineteenth century Cuba became one of the chess centers of the New World. It was there, in the early 1860s, that the first Latin American chess journal, Revista Mensual de Ajedrez, came into being.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century few cities in the world welcomed celebrated chessplayers so warmly, indeed, as enthusiastically, as Havana. The names of such distinguished visitors as Morphy, Steinitz, Chigorin, Gunsberg, Lasker, and Blackburne were pronounced at the Havana Chess Club with reverence. Twice in Havana, in 1862 and in 1864, Morphy astounded the locals with his blindfold play, and in 1889 and in 1892 the Havana Club hosted matches between Steinitz and Chigorin.
“There was always a multitude of spectators,” said Chigorin in and interview after the first contest, “and our match was definitely the topic of the day in Havana – even the cabbies took an interest in the outcome of our games. There was nowhere I could go – either for a stroll or shopping – without being surrounded by people showering me with questions.”
Raúl, now with a haircut and dressed like a typical boy of Havana, visited the club during the world title match in 1892, which left a deep impression on him.
Later he would write: “One’s proclivities in any direction are often indicated in early childhood, and are as often the result of some special event which has attracted the interest of the child beyond common boundaries. In my case it was one of the historic Steinitz-Chigorin encounters, extensively discussed in Havana at the time. I was then four years old.”2
Little Raúl’s appearance invariably evoked a warm welcome from the Havana Club’s habitués, who early on would offer him queen odds. Raúl won game after game at these odds.
Here is such a game he played at the club with Ramon Iglesias.
(1) Iglesias – Capablanca
Havana, 1893
Petroff Defense [C42]
(remove White’s queen)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.N×e5 N×e4 4.d4 d6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Bd3 Nf6 7.c4 0-0 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.a3 a6 10.Bd2 b6 11.0-0-0 Bd7 12.Kb1 Na5 13.Rc1 Nb3 14.Rc2 c5 15.d5 Re8 16.h4 b5 17.g4 Nd4 18.N×d4 c×d4 19.Ne4 b×c4 20.N×f6+ B×f6 21.B×c4 B×g4 22.Bd3 Bf3 23.Rh3 B×d5 24.h5 Be6 25.Rg3 g6 26.f4 Bh4 27.Rg1 Kh8
28.f5 B×f5 29.B×f5 g×f5 30.Bh6 Rg8 31.Rcg2 R×g2 32.R×g2 Qf6 33.Bg7+ Q×g7 34.R×g7 K×g7 35.Kc2 Kf6 36.Kd3 Ke5 37.h6 f4 38.Ke2 Ke4 0-1
On returning home, Raúl would brood over his chessboard battles and had trouble falling asleep. At his doctor’s advice, Don Jorge stopped taking his son to the club. Raúl began to play chess with his neighbors, and later, with his school friends.
In 1899 the American maestro Harry Nelson Pillsbury visited Havana. Pillsbury was well known due to his victory in the Hastings Tournament of 1895, where he finished ahead of world champion Lasker, ex-world champion Steinitz, and Chigorin, Tarrasch, Gunsberg, Janowsky, and other giants, and also thanks to his phenomenal blindfold chess displays. Pillsbury’s appearances in Havana produced a deep impression on eleven-year-old Capablanca, who afterwards wrote:
“The reader can well imagine the impression on a child full of imagination produced by a man who could play simultaneously sixteen or more blindfold games of chess at the same time that he played a number of blindfold games of draughts and a hand of duplicate whist ...Pillsbury’s displays... electrified me, and with the consent of my parents I began to visit the Havana Chess Club again. By leaps and bounds I reached the top class in three months.”3
Capablanca had by now met all the leading players of his country over the board. In his first two games with the Cuban champion, Juan Corzo, Raúl came out badly. But this did not dishearten the boy. On the contrary, he tackled his chess books even more avidly. Particularly to his liking was a book on endgames, in which he soon achieved a high degree of perfection. He was barely thirteen when he played his official match with Juan Corzo. The winner would be the first player to score four wins.
The beginning of the match, with Raúl losing the first two games, discouraged his fans, but not Capablanca. At an early age he learned to analyze his defeats and identify the reasons for them. Raúl thus quickly discovered his opponent’s weak points, particularly in endgames, which enabled him to reverse the course of the struggle. Capablanca won four games and, with them, the match and the championship of Cuba. The final score was +4, –3, =6 in Capablanca’s favor.4
All told, thirty-nine games between the young Capablanca and leading Cuban players, played from September 1901 through March 1902, survive. They include the thirteen games of his match with Juan Corzo, played from September 17 through December 18, 1901.
Capablanca later included two of these games, which he considered the best of the match, in his book, My Chess Career (London, 1920). The first of these games vividly characterizes the originality of his thinking in a theoretical dispute, which the boy won.
(2) Corzo – Capablanca
Havana m (8), 1901
Vienna Opening [C25]
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 e×f4 4.Nf3 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5 h6 7.N×f7 K×f7 8.d4 d5
Corzo often played gambits, assuming that in the resulting complications he would have less difficulty in overcoming his less experienced adversary who, moreover, was less conversant with opening theory. After this game he told Capablanca that the book recommended 8...d6. It is also the more noteworthy that Raúl’s move is now considered the strongest reply.
9.e×d5
Present-day theory recommends 9.B×f4 Bb4 10.Be2 B×c3+ 11.b×c Nf6 12.0-0 Kg7, with better chances for White.
9...Qe7+ 10.Kf2
Corzo played 10.Be2 in one of the previous match games, which ended in a draw. He decided here to move his king on the assumption that this would give him better attacking chances. But his opponent, who had likewise analyzed this line of play, came up with a surprise.
10...g3+! 11.Kg1
11...N×d4! 12.Q×d4 Qc5
Unbelievably, Whites next eight moves are all forced! One gets the impression that Black’s pieces are commanded not by a 13-year-old boy but by an experienced master.
13.Ne2 Qb6
Not 13...Bg4 because of 14.Be3 f×e3 15.Q×g4.
14.Q×b6
14.Be3?? is now a blunder because of 14...f×e3 15.Q×h8 Bg7 16.Qh7 Q×b2 17.Rd1 Qf6 18.Rh3 Bf5.
14...a×b6 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.c3 Ra4 17.Be2 B×d4+ 18.c×d4 R×d4 19.b3 Nf6 20.Bb2 Rd2 21.Bh5+ N×h5!
The knight, biding its time on g8, now springs to life.
22.B×h8 f3
Vacating f4 for the knight, which is destined to bring the game to a spectacular end.
23.g×f3
Not 23.Bc3, because 23...f2+ 24.Kf1 Bf5 forces mate.
23...Nf4 24.Be5
24.Re1 invites 24...Rg2+ 25.Kf1 Rf2+ 26.Kg1 Bh3, followed by ...Ne2+ and ...Rf1#, while 27.R×h3 is anwered by 27...N×h3+ 28.Kh1 Rh2#.
24...Rg2+ 25.Kf1 Rf2+ 26.Ke1 Nd3+ 0–1
Capablanca’s next game vividly illustrates not just his enterprising style, but a mature strategy in what appears to be a simple ending.
(3) Capablanca – Corzo
Havana, m (11), 1901
Queen’s Pawn Game [D02]
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.e3 Nc6 4.b3
Capablanca shows he is aware of a line played by Johannes Zukertort.
4...e6 5.Bb2 Nf6 6.Nbd2 c×d4
The preferred move now is 6.Be7 or Bd6.
7.e×d4 Bd6 8.Bd3 0-0 9.0-0 Nh5 10.g3 f5
This weakens e6. But then, Black’s plan for achieving vigorous counter-chances on the kingside proves positionally flawed, as Capablanca strikingly demonstrates.
11.Ne5 Nf6 12.f4 B×e5 13.f×e5 Ng4 14.Qe2 Qb6
A better move may have been 14.Nb4, to exchange the queen’s bishop. Or, in the event of 15.Ba3 Qa5, the king’s bishop, which plays a crucial part in Black’s fate.
15.Nf3 Bd7 16.a3 Kh8 17.h3 Nh6 18.Qf2 Nf7 19.Kg2 g5 20.g4 Ne7 21.Qe3 Rg8 22.Rae1 Ng6
Better was 22.Bb5.
23.g×f5 Nf4+ 24.Kh2 N×d3
Learning the hard way. This could have been accomplished by the same knight ten moves earlier, but better late than never!
25.Q×d3 e×f5 26.c4 Qe6
25...Bb5 is futile because of 26.c4! Qe6.
Capablanca believed that 26...Qa6 would have been better, but even so Black could not have prevented the combined attack along the e-file, and the a1-h6 diagonal.
27.c×d5 Q×d5 28.e6 Bb5
Naturally, not 28...B×e6?? 29.R×e6 Q×e6 30.d5+.
29.Q×b5
Capablanca concedes that 20 years later he would simply have played 29.Qd2 B×f1 30.e×f7 Q×f7 31.d5+ Rg7 32.N×g5 Qg6. 33.Re7, etc. “but at the time I could not resist the temptation of sacrificing the queen.”
29...Q×b5 30.d5+ Rg7 31.e×f7 h6
31...Rf8 did not save the day either, because of 32Nd4! Q×d5 33.Re8 Q×f7 34.R×f8+ and 35.N×f5.
32.Nd4 Q×f1
Now, in response to 32...Q×d5, White would have played 33.Re8. Against 32...Qd7 Capablanca planned 33.N×f5 with a crushing attack. He cited the following brilliant finale: 33...Q×f5 34.B×g7+ Kh7 35.Re7 Q×d5 36.Be5+ Kg6 37.Rg7+ Kh5 38.Ng3+ Kh4 39.Rf4+ g×f 40.Rg4+#.
33.R×f1 R×f7 34.R×f5 R×f5 35.N×f5+ Kh7 36.Ne7 Rf8 37.Kg2 h5 38.d6 g4 39.h×g4 h×g4 40.Be5 Kh6 41.d7 Rd8 42.Ng8+ R×g8 43.Bf6 Kg6 44.d8Q R×d8 45.B×d8
Black still hopes for a draw, which is theoretically possible here only if White is left with a bishop and the a-pawn. For this reason White had to display a certain precision in this seemingly won ending.
45...b5 46.Kf2 Kf5 47.Ke3 Ke5 48.Kd3 Kd5 49.Kc3 g3 50.Bh4 g2 51.Bf2 a5 52.b4 Ke4
53.Bb6!
The position is drawn after 53.b×a5 Kd5.
53...Kd5 54.Kd3 Kc6 55.Bg1 Kd5 56.Bh2
Depriving the black king access to e5.
56...Kc6 57.Kd4 a4 58.Ke5 Kb6 59.Kd5 Ka6!
Hoping for 60.Kc6?? g1Q! 61.B×g1 stalemate!
60.Kc5! 1-0
Around this time Capablanca’s combinative powers and endgame technique grew more sophisticated. Typical of his style at this period was the tactical surprise he sprang on Corzo in one of their unofficial games.
(4) Corzo – Capablanca
Havana, 1902
French Defense [C10]
29...Bf2! 30.Rd7+
Nor would White have found salvation in 30.R×f2 R×f2 31.Rd7+ Kh6 32.f5+ Kh5 33.Rh7+ Kg4 34.B×f2 K×f3 35.Bg3 Rd8 36.Be1 Rd1 37.h4 R×e1+ 38.Kh2 Kf2 39.Kh3 e×f5 and 40...Rh1#.
30...Kh6 31.Rd5 B×e3 32.Ng5 R2×g5 33.f×g5+ R×g5 34.Rf6+ Kh5 35.R×e6 B×d5+ 36.c×d5 Rg1# 0-1
Cuba’s youthful champion became its hope. He received publicity in the national press, and other countries in the Americas also learned about him.
In 1904 the costs of José Raúl’s education were assumed by Don Ramon Pelayo, a relative and close friend of the Capablancas. José Raúl’s parents had no objection to having their son go to New York to complete his education – they had their hands full with their other children. José Raúl had to promise just one thing: not to play chess.
At first this promise seemed easy enough to keep, as Raúl’s interests included mathematics, history, philosophy, and medicine. He also good at sports and aspired to learn to play the violin. At one time Capablanca considered becoming a professional baseball player, but abandoned this idea because of a shoulder injury.
After completing his studies at the private Woodycliff School in New Jersey, Capablanca went on to study chemical engineering at Columbia University. He passed his entrance examinations brilliantly, taking just over an hour to solve algebra problems for which three hours were allotted.
But his chosen specialty did not hold Capablanca’s interest for long. His overriding interest was clearly chess. He began to frequent the famous Manhattan Chess Club, where he quickly won recognition. Many features of his play had by that time become attractive: the purposeful character of his actions on the board, his rejection of stereotypes, his unflagging efforts to hold the initiative, and the astonishing speed with which he generated clever schemes and elegant combinations. In one of his games from that period, against Robert Raubitschek, Capablanca sacrificed two minor pieces en route to a brilliant mating finish.
(5) Raubitschek – Capablanca
New York, 1906
King’s Gambit [C38]
21...Nf6 22.Qh8+ Rd8 23.Q×f6 Rdg8 24.Rf2
24.Q×e7 R×g2+ 25.Kh1 Bd5 and mate is inevitable.
24...R×g2+! 25.Kf1 Bc4+ 26.N×c4 Rg1# 0-1
In 1906 José Raúl took first place in a lightning chess tournament. The field included world champion Emanuel Lasker, who was in New York on tour. The young Cuban’s reputation at the club was now sufficiently high, and on one occasion Dr. Lasker invited him to analyze a position with him.
Capablanca was naturally flattered by the world champion’s wish to consult him. At the time Capablanca believed the endgame was his forte. His openings, as he later recalled, “were much weaker than they should have been, as there is too much slow moving, elaborate plans which cannot be carried out against strong opponents.” As for the middle game, “the combinations are surer and more profound, and there begins to loom forward playing for position.” (My Chess Career).
Incidentally, Capablanca’s interest in analyzing unusual endings is evidenced by a study he composed. The theme is complicated, involving a struggle by a rook and knight against a rook and seven pawns. The study was first published in Lasker’s Chess Magazine (August 1908).
(6) Capablanca, 1908
Study – White wins
1.Kc4 Ka5
1...Ka3 2.Nd1 Rh2 3.Nc3 Rb2 4.Ra1+ Ra2 5.R×a2#.
2.K×c5 Ka6
2...Ka4 3.Nc4 Rb7 4.R×b7 g2 5.Ra7+.
3.K×c6 Ka7
3...Ka5 4.Nc2 Ka4 5.Kb6 Rb7+ 6.K×b7 Ka5 7.Kc6 Ka4 8.Kb6 g2 9.Rb4#.
4.Nd5 Rh2 5.Nc3 f5
5...g2 6.Nb5+ Kb8 7.Nd6+ Ka8 8.Ne8 Rh7 9.Nc7+ R×c7+ 10.K×c7 g1Q 11.R×g1 g3 12.Ra1#; 5...Rc2 6.Rb3 Rc1 7.Kc7 Ra1 8.Rb7+ Ka6 9.Rb8 Ka7 10.Nb5+ Ka6 11.Nd4 Rc1+ 12.Nc6 R×c6+ 13.K×c6.
6.Rb7+ Ka6
6...Ka8 7.Re7 Rh8?? (7...Rb2 draws) 8.Nd5 Rc8+ 9.Kb6 Kb8 10.Nb4 Rc1 (10...g2 11.Na6+ Ka8 12.Ra7#) 11.Re8+ Rc8 12.Na6+ Ka8 13.R×c8#.
7.Rb6+ Ka5 8.Rb5+ Ka6 9.Rb4 Ka7 10.Nb5+ Kb8 11.Nd6+ Ka8 12.Nc4 Ra2 13.Kc7 Ra7+ 14.Kc8 Ra6 15.Rb8+ Ka7 16.Rb7+ Ka8 17.Nb6+ R×b6 18.R×b6 Ka7 19.Rb2 f4 20.Kc7 Ka6 21.Kc6 Ka5 22.Kc5 Ka4 23.Kc4 Ka3 24.Rg2 and White wins.
In the opinion of the composition editors of Lasker’s Chess Magazine, Dr. Herman Keidanz and Samuel Loyd, “Capablanca’s ending is an original contribution and a very interesting stratagem.”
In 1965 the Soviet study composer Genrikh Kasparyan found that Black could improve his play sufficiently in the 6....Ka6 variation to draw. In the 1970s Capablanca’s study was the topic of a debate in the journal Shakhmaty v SSSR. In the view of international master Nikolai Novotelny and grandmaster Yuri Averbakh, Black can defend by retreating 6...Ka8. Averbakh proposed 7.Re7 Rb2 8.Re8 Ka7 9.Nd5 R×b5 10.K×b5 f4 11.Kc6 g2 12.Re7+ Kb8! 13.Re1 f3 14.Rb1+ Kc8 15.Ra1 Kb8, etc.
Capablanca’s popularity in the United States rose sharply in the winter of 1909, when he undertook his first U.S. tour.
“Astonishing!” “Fantastic!” “Beyond All Expectations!” were some of the newspaper headlines. In his first ten simultaneous displays he did not lose a single game. In a display in Hoboken, New Jersey, José Raúl used only 1 hour 40 minutes to complete 28 games, drawing three and losing only one (after declining a draw). His overall tour scorecard was phenomenal: Out of more than six hundred games he lost only twelve and drew seventeen.
The United States was prepared to accept Capablanca as its darling. But first he had to prove equal to the national champion, Frank J. Marshall.
Marshall was considered one of the leading players in the world after his impressive victories at international tournaments. At Cambridge Springs (1904) Marshall finished two points ahead of Lasker, five and a half points ahead of Chigorin and Schlechter, and six points ahead of Pillsbury. He also took first prizes at Nuremberg (1906) and Dusseldorf (1908). In these three tournaments he did not lose a single game, winning many encounters by spectacular combinations and showing equal proficiency in attack and counterattack.
Lt. Jorge Capablanca and José Raúl Capablanca
Capablanca at Columbia University
Capablanca’s simultaneous display in Moscow 1913.
The Bernstein-Capablanca exhibition game in Moscow 1914.
Despite these brilliant victories, Marshall had difficulties with adherents of the positional school, particularly in match play. A great romantic, Marshall competed with great inspiration in tournaments, where he faced a new adversary every round. But he seemed not to find the same enthusiasm in matches, and his results were sometimes dismal. Thus, in contests with Siegbert Tarrasch (1905) and Emanuel Lasker (1907), the latter a world championship match, Marshall won only one and lost sixteen out of thirty-two games.
Nevertheless, one must be impressed at the twenty-year-old Capablanca’s challenge to the number-one U.S. player. Marshall, who had already competed in twenty-three international tournaments and played seven matches against the great players of Europe, was confident he would win the match. As in his previous contests, the winner would be the first to score eight wins.
Marshall had the white pieces in the first game, played on April 19, 1909. Both competitors were consistent in their choice of openings. Capablanca invariably opened with his king’s pawn, hoping for the Ruy Lopez, while Marshall opened with the queen pawn. This strategy brought Marshall a victory in only the seventh game. By that time, he was already three points down.
Why did Marshall persist in playing the Queen’s Gambit despite his lack of success? Apparently, he had made a thorough study of this opening and his tournament successes had convinced him that it would be a trusty weapon against any opponent in any circumstance. But his match with the world champion two years earlier ought to have led him to review his opening strategy (Marshall lost three and drew three of the six Queen’s Gambit games). Capablanca exploited Marshall’s opening weaknesses no less convincingly, scoring half his victories with the black pieces!
Nor did the Cuban encounter any formidable difficulties in the Ruy Lopez, which in the variations Marshall selected led to dramatic positions from the very start. On three occasions Marshall played the Jaenisch Gambit, collecting only half a point.
Here is the first Jaenisch Gambit, interesting not for the opening but for the middlegame, where for the first time in an important contest we encounter one of Capablanca’s “little combinations,” which eventually became typical of his style. At first sight, such combinations appear to be mere strokes of luck, opportunities to deliver an unexpected and elegant tactical blow. But in fact they are the consummation of subtle play and careful preparation, which makes Capablanca’s combinative surprises particularly attractive.
(7) Capablanca – Marshall
New York m (2), 1909
Ruy Lopez [C62]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Qe2 Nd4 6.N×d4 e×d4 7.e×f5+
Another possible plan of action here would be 7.e5 Ng4 8.h3 Nh6 9.Nd1 Qe7 10.c3 c6 11.Bd3.
7...Be7 8.Ne4 0-0 9.N×f6+ B×f6 10.0-0 d5 11.Bd3 c5 12.Qh5 Qc7
Perhaps better was 12...c4 13.Be2 d3 14.c×d3 b5, and Black has problems developing his bishop, for example 15.Rb1 Bd4 16.g4 Rf6, with the threat of Rh6.
13.c4! d×c4 14.B×c4+ Kh8 15.d3 Qe5 16.g4 Bd7 17.a4 Be7?!
Black fails to counter White’s lucid strategy with an equally clear-cut plan. Better was 17.Rae8, but Black’s position is already quite uncomfortable.
18.Bd2 Qe2 19.Rae1 Q×d2 20.R×e7 Be8?
21.f6! Qh6
21...B×h5 is wrong because of 22.f×g7#; and 21...g×f6 22.Q×h7#.
22.Q×h6 g×h6 23.Rfe1 B×a4 24.R×b7 Rae8
Of course not 24...R×f6, because after 25.Ree7 Black is mated.
25.R×e8 R×e8 26.R×a7 Bd1 27.h3 h5 28.g5 h4 29.f4 Bh5 30.f5 Rf8 31.Rc7 Rb8 32.R×c5 1-0
In several games Capablanca skillfully repulsed his opponent’s determined attacks. At times he boldly entered complex positions, which Marshall so eagerly sought, and emerged victorious. This was true in the fifth game, where Capablanca’s twenty-first move (g7-g5) invited White’s assault and dramatic complications. The move required far-reaching and precise calculations, since the least mistake could have cost Black the game.
(8) Marshall – Capablanca
New York, m (5), 1909
Queen’s Gambit [D55]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Ne4?!
In those days the theory of the Queen’s Gambit was not yet so well developed. Nowadays it is customary to play 5...0-0, which leads to the thoroughly analyzed Tartakower-Makagonov-Bondarevsky variation. Another possibility is 5...c6. Lasker had made this extravagant move on three occasions in his match with Marshall, and Capablanca followed Lasker’s example. The first five moves of this game were repeated in games seven, nine, eleven, thirteen, fifteen, and twenty-one. Later both Lasker and Capablanca introduced systems of their own in the Queen’s Gambit, which have retained their theoretical and practical value to this day.
6.B×e7 Q×e7 7.Bd3
In Capablanca’s opinion this move is inferior to 7.c×d5 N×c3 8.b×c3 e×d5 9.Qb3. Marshall was evidently still under the spell of his crushing defeat at the hands of Lasker in their fifteenth game, where that very line of play had been followed.
7...N×c3 8.b×c3 Nd7 9.Nf3 0-0 10.Qc2
In the third match game against Lasker, Marshall played 10.0-0 Rd8 11.Qc2 Nf8 12.Ne5, and in the seventh game with Capablanca 10.c×d5 e×d5 11.Qb3, winning on the twenty-fifth move, his only victory in that match.
10...h6 11.0-0 c5 12.Rfe1 d×c4 13.B×c4 b6 14.Qe4
“I do not think well of this maneuver, as the attack is too slow to obtain any advantage, and on the other hand it compels Black to post his pieces where he wanted, i.e. the bishop at b7, the king’s knight at f6, and his two rooks at c8 and d8, respectively” (Capablanca).
Rb8 15.Bd3 Nf6 16.Qf4 Bb7 17.e4 Rfd8 18.Rad1 Rbc8 19.Re3
This weakens the first rank. Better was 19.Bb1 at once.
19...c×d4 20.c×d4 Rc3 21.Bb1
“An error. 21.Qh4 was the only chance White had of holding the game” (Capablanca).
21...g5!
Now that White’s queen has retreated, he loses the pawn on e4. Marshall therefore opts for complications, offering the sacrifice of a knight and pawn.
22.N×g5 R×e3 23.Q×e3 Ng4 24.Qg3 Q×g5 25.h4 Qg7 26.Qc7 R×d4
This gives White counterplay. Better, in Capablanca’s view, would have been
26...Qf6 27.Qg3 h5, or 27.f3 R×d4 28.Rf1 Qe5!, where Black is up a knight.
27.Qb8+ Kh7 28.e5+ Be4 29.R×d4 B×b1 30.Q×a7 N×e5 31.Rf4
31...Be4!
Elegant! Such moves are difficult to plan.
32.g3
The bishop is invulnerable, i.e. 32.R×e4? Nf3+ 33.Kf1 Nd2+. And of course not 33.Kh8?? as Qa1+ mates.
32...Nf3+ 33.Kg2 f5 34.Q×b6
Not 34.Q×g7+ K×g7 35.R×f3 h5, where the rook is trapped and the king is stuck on g2.
34...N×h4+ 35.Kh2 Nf3+ 36.R×f3 B×f3 37.Q×e6 Be4 38.f3 Bd3 39.Qd5 Qb2+ 40.Kg1 Bb1 41.a4 Qa1 42.Qb7+ Kg6 43.Qb6+ Kh5 44.Kh2 Ba2 45.Qb5
Equally quick was 45.g4+ f×g 46.K×g4 47.Q×h6 Qe5+ 48.Kg1 Qe1+, followed by mate in two.
Kg6 46.a5 Qd4 47.Qc6+ Qf6 48.Qe8+ Qf7 49.Qa4 Qe6 50.a6 Qe2+ 51.Kh3 Bd5 52.a7 B×f3 0-1
In this position every check by White results in loss of his queen. Meanwhile, Black threatens mate in two with Qg2+ followed by Qh2. Truly amazing was the harmony Capablanca achieved between his queen and bishop: simultaneously creating a mating net while parrying all threats on the white squares.
Again, in the next, sixth game of the match Capablanca’s play appeared deceptively simple. The seeming simplicity concealed the Cuban’s depth of strategic thinking, ability to position pieces ideally and, finally, to produce the most unexpected sacrifices and combinative strokes.
(9) Capablanca - Marshall
New York m (5), 1909
Ruy Lopez [C66]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.c3
Theory recommends 4.d4.
4...Bg4
Not best by a long shot. Since White has not yet played d4 the bishop can easily come under attack. A better move would have been 4...f5.
5.d3 Be7 6.Nbd2 Nf6 7.0–0 0–0 8.Re1 h6
A rare move in the Ruy Lopez, made either to drive away a bishop from g5 or to prevent a knight sally, as in the Steinitz Defense Deferred. Here Black simply loses a tempo, which Capablanca splendidly exploits.
9.Nf1 Nh7 10.Ne3 Bh5
Now 10...f5 could have been followed by 11.e×f5 B×f5 12.N×f5 R×f5 13.d4 e×d4 14.B×c6 b×c6 15.N×d4.
11.g4!
Securing f5 as an outpost for the knight.
11...Bg6 12.Nf5 h5?
Opening up the h-file benefits White. “Better would have been 12...Ng5 in order to simplify the position” (Capablanca).
13.h3 h×g4 14.h×g4 Bg5 15.N×g5 N×g5 16.Kg2 d5 17.Qe2 Re8 18.Rh1 Re6
19.Qe3!
19.B×g5 would have given Black good counter-chances: 19...Q×g5 20.e×d5 B×f5 21.d×e6 B×g4 22.e×f7+ K×f7 23.f4, but not 23.Qe3?? Bh3++ 24.K×h3 Rh8#.
19...f6 20.Ba4
The “Lopez” bishop’s hour has come, as he hastens to the a2-g8 diagonal.
20...Ne7 21.Bb3 c6 22.Qg3 a5 23.a4 Nf7 24.Be3 b6 25.Rh4 Kf8 26.Rah1
It is here, on the h-file, that the battle will be decided.
26...Ng8 27.Qf3 B×f5
Forced, otherwise the d5-pawn is lost.
28.g×f5 Rd6 29.Qh5 Ra7 30.Qg6 Nfh6
“Black has no satisfactory defense. Should he play 30...Ne7, White follows up with 31.Rh8+ N×h8 32.R×h8+ Ng8 33.Qh7 Kf7 34.B×b6 and wins” (Capablanca).
31.R×h6 g×h6 32.B×h6+ Ke7 33.Qh7+ Ke8 34.Q×g8+ Kd7 35.Qh7+ Qe7
36.Bf8!
Just as in the previous game, the Cuban makes clever and elegant use of his bishops.
36...Q×h7 37.R×h7+ Kc8 38.R×a7 1-0
“This is one of my finest games,” Capablanca wrote ten years later.
In this match Capablanca showed that he was a versatile player, equally at home in combinative and positional play, capable of bold attack and stubborn defense. Even at this early stage of his career Capablanca had produced several fine examples of how to deal with seemingly simple positions. For example, he won the last (twenty-third) game, which followed nine consecutive draws, in purely positional style. In this game, through subtle maneuvers, Capablanca forced exchanges, each noticeably worsening Marshall’s position, played the ending flawlessly, and won.
By winning eight games and losing only one in this match, which lasted more than three months, Capablanca demonstrated complete superiority over Marshall, who had only recently had world championship ambitions.
Capablanca’s victory dazzled his admirers, who began urging him to challenge Lasker for the world championship. But the Cuban took a more sober view of his chances and rejected their advice.
The match against Marshall greatly enhanced Capablanca’s popularity in the Americas, where he came to be called the “Cuban Morphy.” The match was no less important as a factor in Capablanca’s maturity as a player.
Capablanca’s victory over Marshall produced an impression in Europe, too. The Hungarian master Isidor Gunsberg, who had once played a match with Steinitz for the world title, wrote in the Nottinghamshire Guardian that, considering Capablanca was barely twenty years old and had never played a top-notch maestro before Marshall, his victory was the hallmark of genius.
This opinion was not shared by all the chess authorities at the time. Many took a more guarded view of the reports from across the Atlantic. They had read earlier accounts of the second coming of Paul Morphy, for example after Pillsbury‘s magnificent victory at Hastings, and Marshall’s triumph at Cambridge Springs.
But neither Marshall nor Pillsbury lived up to expectations. What’s more, in Europe a whole galaxy of superclass players appeared, many of whom began eyeing the chess throne. They included Akiva Rubinstein, Carl Schlechter, Dawid Janowsky, Géza Maróczy, Oldrich Duras, Siegbert Tarrasch, Aaron Nimzovitch, Milan Vidmar, Ossip Bernstein and Rudolf Spielmann. This group included exponents of classic positional chess, as well as colorful romantics whose games were marked by an original, combinative style. Particularly impressive results were achieved in the tournaments of those years by Rubinstein, Maróczy, Duras, Janowsky, and Schlechter. The idea of holding a championship match between one of these stars and Lasker arose frequently, but the champion’s financial terms were beyond the resources of the challengers.
Thus news of a rising chess star from across the Atlantic aroused mixed feelings among European masters. While a potential challenger from the New World would promote interest in chess, Europe believed that America might seize the initiative in arranging a title match. At the time the champion was guided by no rules, and faced challengers at his pleasure.
Yet when Capablanca declined to participate in the 1910 international tournament in Hamburg on grounds of ill health, the British Chess Magazine commented that the Cuban maestro was unsure about playing in Europe because his results there would have been uncertain.
Capablanca’s match with Marshall evoked great interest from Russian chessplayers, who sincerely welcomed this emerging talent. One might have expected ambivalence or worse, given Russia’s own aspirations to the world chess crown thanks to the rise of Akiva Rubinstein.5 His victories at Ostende (B) and Carlsbad in 1907 advanced him to the forefront of world title challengers. In 1909 he reaffirmed his preeminence by sharing first and second prizes with world champion Lasker at the Chigorin Memorial Tournament in St. Petersburg. Around the same time teen-aged Muscovite Alexander Alekhine was competing for prizes in amateur tournaments.
The same issue of Shakhmatnoye obozreniye that covered the 1907 Carlsbad and Ostend tournaments carried a lengthy piece on the Capablanca-Marshall match, reproducing many games. During the St. Petersburg tournament, Lasker remarked that he might soon have to play a match with Capablanca. The journal cited Capablanca’s strong showing against Marshall as the justification for such a contest.
Alekhine later described his impression: “The first time that I heard of Capablanca was in 1909, as indeed did all my contemporaries, when he won his match against Marshall in such an astonishingly convincing fashion” (British Chess Magazine, 1956).
In its next issue Shakhmatnoye obozreniye reported that a match between Capablanca and Rubinstein might be in the works. “If Mr. Rubinstein’s American tour takes place, his meeting with Capablanca is inevitable.” Unfortunately this match never materialized.
Capablanca returned to Cuba after his match with Marshall. He had not been home in five years, and was welcomed as a national hero. But Capablanca did not stay in his native country for long. He was scheduled to undertake a new tour of the United States and play in a tournament in New York, which he regarded as preparation for his European debut.
In this 1910 tournament Capablanca for the first time demonstrated a feature that was to become characteristic of many of his contests: an ability to muster his strength and intellect at a critical moment, to will the course of events in his favor.
He found himself at the chess board a mere two hours after a grueling twenty-seven hour train ride from Indianapolis. Weary from his journey, Capablanca made a poor start: After the first half of the tournament he ranked fifth. But by winning five games in a row in the second half he managed to finish second after Marshall. This magnificent spurt after initial setbacks demonstrated Capablanca’s remarkable fighting spirit.
A contest that could rightly be called a super-tournament was held at the beginning of 1911 in the Spanish resort city of San Sebastian, on the shores of the Bay of Biscay. With the exception of Capablanca, only players who had never dropped below fourth prize in the tournaments of the previous ten years were invited. Apart from Lasker, who had declined to participate, all the world’s leading players were present: Rubinstein, Marshall, Nimzovitch, Vidmar, Tarrasch, Schlechter, Maróczy, Janowsky, Duras, Bernstein, Spielmann, Teichmman, Burn, and Leonhardt.
Of those players Capablanca had previously met only Marshall over the board. But since the American had defeated many of these players at Cambridge Springs and in other tournaments, Capablanca had every reason to expect a good performance at San Sebastian.
This was not just the self-assurance of youth: His first international tournament was being held in a country with which he felt a great affinity in language, culture, and traditions.
Iberia figures prominently in chess history. It was through this region that the game reached Central Europe in the early Middle Ages. Valuable contributions to chess were made by Alphonso the Learned in his thirteenth-century Treatise, and by the great chessplayers of the Renaissance: Pedro Damiano, Ruy Lopez, and Luis de Lucena. Lopez, after whom the popular “Spanish” opening is named, arranged an international tournament in Madrid in 1575.
A devotion to chess was in those days expressed by the author of Don Quixote, Miguel de Cervantes, who likened Sancho Panza’s tribulations to a chess game. And while the Spain of Capablanca’s day could boast no great chess celebrities, it resolved not to lag behind other nations in holding major tournaments. The appearance of José Raúl Capablanca on the chess horizon had therefore been welcomed in Spain with understandable enthusiasm. From the standpoint of chess history the San Sebastian tournament, for Spain, bridges its illustrious chess past to the chess boom that began in the country in the mid-1980s.
Capablanca spent a mostly happy month in Spain. His mood was slightly soured for a few days after his arrival by statements from some competitors who felt that his match victory over Marshall was insufficient grounds for inviting him to such a premier tournament. Bernstein, a doctor of law, even discerned in this invitation a legal breach of the terms of contest, since Capablanca had as yet not taken part in a single international tournament! Nimzovitch was similarly displeased. Spielmann wrote of Capablanca: “The prolonged and difficult struggle he had had to wage to win recognition had somewhat frayed his nerves and embittered him. He saw himself as a solitary figure surrounded by enemies and therefore always inclined to see a deliberate attack on himself in even the most innocent words or deeds.”
Just before the tournament, Nimzovitch had the opportunity to see for himself that it was no easy matter to cope with this “gate crasher.” Nimzovitch was playing a casual game with Bernstein when Capablanca strolled by their table. While watching the game the Cuban could not restrain from commenting. An infuriated Nimzovitch exclaimed: “This is a game between tried and tested masters, while you have yet to earn that title!” Capablanca reacted calmly, mentioning with a smile that he would be glad to play a few games with Nimzovitch for stakes. The challenge was accepted, and all the games were won by the young Cuban. Nimzovitch was forced to eat his words.
There were smiles and murmurs among the competitors when it was announced at the drawing ceremony that in the very first round Bernstein would play Capablanca. The Cuban, who had the white pieces, adopted a rather unsophisticated line of the Ruy Lopez. But by his twentieth move, g2-g4, made after castling kingside, Capablanca made it clear that he was embarking on an uncompromising struggle. Bernstein underestimated the profound idea behind his opponent’s knight maneuvers and went on gobbling up pawns with his queen. Capablanca eventually positioned his knights in dominating outposts, where supported by three kingside pawns they virtually towered over the black king. Without waiting for the spectacular finale, mate delivered by the rook’s pawn, Bernstein resigned.
(10) Capablanca – Bernstein
San Sebastian, 1911
Ruy Lopez [C66]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0–0 Be7 5.Nc3 d6 6.B×c6+ b×c6 7.d4 e×d4
In the opinion of Tarrasch, 7...Nd7 was preferable. He wrote that in his match with Bernstein he had not once been able to mount an attack after 8.d×e5 d×e5.
8.N×d4 Bd7 9.Bg5 0–0 10.Re1
In Lasker-Salwe, St. Petersburg, 1909, the world champion continued 10.Qd3, which was followed by 10...Re8 11.Rae1 c5 12.Nb3 Ng4 13.B×e7 R×e7, after which White is slightly better.
10...h6 11.Bh4 Nh7 12.B×e7 Q×e7 13.Qd3 Rab8 14.b3 Ng5
Black hastens to transfer his knight to e6, but a more auspicious plan might be 14...Rfe8 followed by 15...Nf8, where it can move to either e6 or g6.
15.Rad1 Qe5 16.Qe3 Ne6 17.Nce2 Qa5
18.Nf5!
Unexpected and bold! Capablanca abandons the a-pawn, apparently without compensation.
18...Nc5
But Bernstein decides not play 18...Q×a2 immediately because after 19.Qc3, threatening 20.Ra1, Black’s queen can retreat only to a6 or a3, leading in either case to extreme complications. Capablanca offered the following variation: 19...Qa6 20.Nf4 f6 21.Qg3 g5! 22.Ng6! Rf7 23.N×h6+ Kg7 24.N×f7 K×g6 25.N×d6 c×d6 26.R×d6 Rb7 27.e5, and White wins. If Black tries 24...K×f7, then White responds 25.f4! K×g6 26.f5+, winning an exchange.
On 19...Qa3, Romanovsky gives 20.Nf4 Qc5 21.Qg3 Qe5 22.N×h6+ Kh7 (22...Kh8?? 23.N×f7+! wins the queen) 23.N×e6 Q×e6 24.Nf5, with a fine position for White.
19.Ned4 Kh7
This move neutralizes two threats: 20.N×c6 B×c6 21.Ne7+ Kh8 22.N×c6, which wins an exchange, and 20.N×h6+ g×h6 21.Q×h6 followed by 22.Re3, which gives White a dangerous attack.
Still, a player with a more vigorous style might have chosen to give up the h6-pawn by playing 19...Rfe8, for example 20.Qg3 g6 21.N×h6+ Kg7 22.Ndf5+ B×f5 23.N×f5+ Kf8, where White retains a solid edge after 24.Nd4 R×e4 25.R×e4 N×e4 26.Qh4 Qh5. Black is, however, slightly better following 24.Nh6 N×e4 25.Qf4 Nf6 26.R×e8+ R×e8.
20.g4
Some annotators, including Romanovsky, awarded this move an exclamation mark as an innovation imparting maximum energy to White’s attack. But Tarrasch described it as a “weak continuation.” Tarrasch suggested 20.Qg3 g6 21.Ne7 Qb6 22.e5 d5 23.e6, after which White is winning. However, the subsequent course of the game testifies to a highly unconventional, profound assessment of the position by Capablanca.
20...Rbe8
20...Q×a2?? 21.Ra1 Qb2 22.Reb1 traps the black queen, while 20...B×f5 21.N×f5 Q×a2 22.Qc3 carries the double threat of mate on g7 and 23.Ra1.
21.f3 Ne6 22.Ne2
The beginning of an original maneuver that transfers this knight to h5. Tarrasch disapproved of this move on the grounds that Black now has the chance to play 22...Qb6, exchanging queens, but in that case White would enjoy a superior position.
22...Q×a2
Bernstein admitted after the game that he was at this point totally oblivious to the danger and could not resist the temptation of winning two pawns.
23.Neg3 Q×c2
Here, in Lasker’s opinion Black should have played 23...f6 followed by 23...Rf7.
24.Rc1 Qb2 25.Nh5 Rh8
It is difficult here to recommend a satisfactory defense for Black. In the event of 25...g6, White can play 26.Q×h6+ Kg8 27.e5 g×h5 28.g×h5, where one of his rooks will find its way to the g-file to deliver mate. If Black tries 25...g5, then 26.e5 f6 27.Qd3! Note that after 27.N×f6+?? R×f6 28.e×f6 Nf4, Black wins.
26.Re2
By means of this move and the next White drives the black queen from the critical a1–h8 diagonal.
26...Qe5 27.f4 Qb5
28.Nf×g7 Nc5
Black would not have saved the game by moving the rook with 28...Rd8 because of 29.f5 Nf8 (29...N×g7?? 30.Nf6#) 30.e5 Q×e5 31.Qd2 Qb5 32.Qb2; similarly, capturing the knight with 28...N×g7 loses to 29.Nf6+ Kg6 30.N×d7 f6 31.e5!.
29.N×e8 B×e8 30.Qc3 f6
Black loses after 30...Ne6 because after 31.Nf6+ Kg6 32.f5+ Kg5 33.h4+ K×h4 34.Rh2+ Kg5 35.Rh5+ Kf4 36.Rf1 he must give up his queen merely to delay getting mated.
31.N×f6+ Kg6 32.Nh5 Rg8 33.f5+ Kg5 34.Qe3+ Kh4 35.Qg3+ 1–0